After researching the whole 9/11 debate for a long time now, and seeing almost every film out there about it, I've come to realize that there are many anomalies, gaping holes and mysteries on both sides that make no sense.

This is the mark of "true skepticism", the ability to apply critical thinking to both sides of an issue, including your own.

Here are some examples from each side - the official story and the inside job hypothesis.

Why the official 9/11 story doesn't make sense:

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire. None at all.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, large airliners have crashed into structures and grounds and left no debris. No large airliner has ever crashed and left no debris. Yet on 9/11, it happened to four airliners.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report otherwise).
- So you see, there are just way too many "firsts" on 9/11 to buy. It would require a huge gigantic leap of faith to believe in all of them. It is too implausible for a reasonable person to buy.
- The flight that hit the Pentagon made maneuvers that are virtually impossible on a 757, even for an expert pilot. Yet the hijacker that allegedly flew the airliner was said to be a bad pilot who could not even fly a small plane well. This is impossible to explain away. Flight 77 made a 270 degree turn into a downward spiral at around 500mph, descending at such a rate as to guarantee crashing into the ground. Then it flew 6 feet above the ground at 500mph before hitting the Pentagon, yet it is aerodynamically impossible for an aircraft to move at that speed so close to the ground.
- The five meter hole in the Pentagon does not fit the size of a 757, which left no debris and its wings which supposed had sheared off, also vanished.
- Flight 93 also left no debris and looked like just a hole in the ground. The FBI changed their explanation why several times. First they said the plane was disintegrated by the speed of the impact. Then they said the debris was scattered over miles. Finally they said the debris was all underground. Yet it was never shown to the public.
- Building 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11, was not even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at near free fall speed symmetrically into its own footprint. Fire cannot explain this and never has. Neither could the 9/11 Commission. NIST also failed to account for all the features. Only controlled demolition could account for this collapse, scientifically speaking. Even the top demolition expert in Europe, Danny Jowenko, said after viewing the video of the Building 7 collapse that it was absolutely the result of controlled demolition without a doubt.
- NORAD failed to intercept four airliners off course on 9/11, which was impossible according to their standard 24/7 procedures. Therefore, it would appear that they were ordered to stand down. Additionally, there were war games on 9/11 that confused NORAD as to which of the hijackers were real and which were simulated. Dick Cheney is also reportedly said to have taken control of NORAD and ordered a stand down.
- Many eyewitnesses report underground sub-basement explosions in the WTC that occurred at different times from the airline hits. William Rodriguez for instance reported an explosion from below that pushed him UPWARD. This contradicts the official story or leaves it incomplete. Yet the 9/11 commission ignored this testimony cause it didn't fit into what they were assigned to find.
- Hundreds of people heard and felt explosions and bombs going off before the WTC collapse, including members of the mainstream media. This is well documented and featured in CNN interviews. Abundant video footage of these hundreds of witnesses can be viewed online and in 9/11 documentaries, one of which is "9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?" which you can see on YouTube and Google Video (http://video.google.com).
- Thermite or thermate evidence was found in the WTC dust and debris by scientists, and so was molten metal, which suggests that explosives were used. Scientific papers have been published on this by Dr. Steven Jones and others.
- There is not enough force from the jet fuel fires or the top portions of the WTC to pulverize all the concrete to dust and fine powder like that. Where did all that unexplained energy come from?
- All the ten key features of the WTC and Building 7 collapse fit that of a controlled demolition and NONE of them fit that of the fire induced collapse of the official story. This is outlined at AE911Truth.org and in their flowcharts and superb 2 hour film presentation "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" which you can watch on YouTube or Google Video (http://video.google.com). Therefore, since the official explanation of the collapses are ZERO for 10, it would appear to be conclusively and scientifically ruled out. Nothing could be more concrete and scientific than that.
- None of the hijacked airliner pilots punched in their emergency code to signal a hijacking in progress, as they were trained to do.
- Airline pilots do not usually give up the cockpit controls to hijackers. That is the last thing they would do, as their first priority is the safety of the passengers. They usually will fly hijackers to wherever they want to go, but will not give up the cockpit, especially to hijackers with only knives and box cutters. And besides, cockpit doors are usually not open for people to get into.
- The BBC and CNN reported the collapse of Building 7 about 20 minutes before it happened, indicating foreknowledge or that they were scripted. Of course, they claim that it was just a mix up, but what else do you expect them to say? "Oops you got me?!"
- Before 9/11, there were put options on airline stocks far above normal, around 600 percent some say, which suggests that there was foreknowledge of the event.
- The FBI admitted that there was no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 and that's why he is not wanted for 9/11 on their home page. Yet the Bush Administration and the mainstream media treats it as Gospel Truth.

So far, all attempts from defenders of the official story to explain away the mysteries, gaping holes and scientific impossibilities above have failed. They usually consist of cop outs and obfuscation attempts that do not address the heart of the matter. Either that, or they ridicule any questioning and critical thinking about the official story. Objectivity does not seem to be the motivators of the defenders of the official story.

However, if we take the inside job hypothesis that 9/11 was a staged false flag event designed to bring us into war in the Middle East, which explains many of the mysteries above, that side also leaves many unanswered questions and anomalies that make no sense as well. Here are some examples.

Why the inside job hypothesis doesn't make sense:

- Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 leave so many suspicious smoking guns? If I were staging a false flag event, I would be trying to leave as little inconsistencies and anomalies as possible to prevent suspicion and exposure. Wouldn't smart criminals and conspiracists make sure not to leave suspicious contradictory evidence behind?
- Why would the perpetrators destroy Building 7 and collapse it like a controlled demolition even though it had not been hit by a plane? Why leave such an obvious smoking gun in public that would lead to the exposing of the fraud?
- If they needed to destroy incriminating documents or data in Building 7, such as the ENRON scandal case files, why not simply shred the documents or erase them from the computer hard drives? And besides, wouldn't all key data uploaded to some internet server in cyberspace as backup anyway? Why destroy the whole building and leave incriminating evidence for all to see?
- If a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but it was a missile or something else, why would they stage this event knowing full well that there would be a high risk that people outside would see that it was a missle and not a 757, which would ruin the whole lie? It seems like a reckless hoax that isn't even worth the risk.
- In fact, the WTC collapses alone would have been sufficient for carrying out the false flag attack to get us into war. So why stage another highly elaborate incident like the Pentagon Crash when it wouldn't have been necessary and would leave the plot open for further exposure? It would have been a huge unnecessary risk in the plot. (Maybe, perhaps, since the Pentagon is in the shape of the Star of David, it was some form of occult ritual?)
- Why crash Flight 93 into the ground? For what purpose? And why leave no debris which made it look suspicious? If I were staging a crash, I'd at least leave some debris to make it look believable.
- If the hijackers were CIA agents or working with the US government, how would they be able to find hijackers willing to sacrifice their lives for this plot? What would they get out of it? And why would Muslim hijackers want to comply with a US government plot anyway?
- But if the hijackers acted alone, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, then how could they fly 757's with no experience, get the pilots to give up the cockpits, and have NORAD stand down, as outlined in the section above?
- Or, if there were no real hijackers on those flights (some are reportedly still alive) then who was flying those planes that hit the WTC? Were they remote controlled? If so, what happened to the passengers and crews of those flights? Were they knocked out by tear gas, as Alex Jones hypothesized?
- If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 didn't make that hole in the ground in Shanksville, PA, then what happened to the passengers and crews of those flights? How would they get rid of them? If they were taken somewhere and shot, how could you be sure that your military ops people would follow through with such a horrific thing? If the passengers are fictitious, wouldn't investigators find out? Either way seems too improbable.
- Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" statement regarding Building 7 in a PBS interview makes no sense either way. He says he was referring to the fire fighters. However, before Building 7's collapse, there there no firefighters there as they had been evacuated from it five hours prior. And plus, he said "pull it" not "pull them", and people are referred to as "them" not "it" of course. But if he had been involved in a conspiracy, why leave such an incriminating clue on national television?
- If the Bin Laden family and the Bush family have such close business ties, as conspiracists and journalists report, then did both families stage 9/11 together, using Osama Bin Laden as the fall guy? Was OBL a CIA operative, as some reports claim? If so, why would Bin Laden agree to have his name demonized the world over as "the most wanted man"? Even if he profited from it somehow, who would want their name falsely attributed as the mastermind behind 9/11, which would tarnish their name and image forever? Who would want to go down in history for a crime he didn't commit? Also, if OBL did not agree to be the fall guy in this plot, then wouldn't the Bush family have ruined their business ties with the Bin Ladens by falsely implicating him?
- If this was an inside job, the way they carried out this plot seems way too risky and complicated for any intelligent person to expect to succeed. So many hundreds of things could have gone wrong that would have foiled the plot or exposed it. It would have involved hundreds of events that would have had to be timed just right, and on the first try too. And it would have involved many people who would have to be expected to all follow through on the plan to the point where one foul up could ruin the whole thing.

I'm sure there are more anomalies, but you get the idea...

So you see, as with the JFK Assassination, no hypothesis seems to explain all the data (unless you go for the fantastic ones). That's why the 9/11 issue is perhaps the biggest mystery and conspiracy of all.

So what then can we conclude? Well I don't know. Obviously something is not being told here, especially since there's never been a real unbiased independent investigation. And that's why there needs to be one.

Who knows? We can't rule out the possibility that the whole 9/11 event was intended to be disputed and ambiguous for whatever diabolical reason. Perhaps it is a diversion from something else? After all, serious people who stage something do not leave so many gaping holes and incriminating evidence behind. So perhaps it was deliberately set up this way?

We may never know. But I hope we will.

Last edited by Winston on Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.

Your analysis is flawed and incorrect, like much Truther "analysis".

WTC had unique construction that made it unusually susceptible to precisely the kind of attack that occurred. The terrorists were very smart and knew precisely what they were doing and what building to attack. Do the same to the ESB and you get a big fire but no collapse. This tubular construction with a sprung floor between an outer tube and inner tube of steel made the collapse go straight down, funnelling it into each floor below. The force of the energy and mass of each floor hitting the one below it would crush the concrete, each subsequent floor adding more mass to the KE=(1/2) mv^2. This energy would have rendered sufficient pressure to melt any steel that was merely hot, on the way down, and would have resulted in workers finding pools of molten steel. If you measure the time of collapse you will find more than enough leeway for impacts to occur and at less than freefall velocity.

Also the temperatures did not need to reach that of MELTING point of the steel. All they had to do was weaken it over time, after the insulation had been stripped from the beams due to a 600 kph impact of a large jet. Just one beam weakens and the floor above tips and begins to collapse into the one below. Just one floor collapses and the entire building falls, as the engineering leeway of adding 20% for safety margin would not have allowed for the additional mass and impact velocity to be supported by the floor below. If you heat steel you weaken it and all it took was one deformed beam and the building collapses. This is due to the modern, hi-tech design of WTC, which allowed for much less leeway if such an event occurred. Once one floor was rendered structurally unsound the entire building, at that moment, ceased to exist as a supportable structure.

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.

Your analysis is flawed and incorrect, like much Truther "analysis".

WTC had unique construction that made it unusually susceptible to precisely the kind of attack that occurred. The terrorists were very smart and knew precisely what they were doing and what building to attack. Do the same to the ESB and you get a big fire but no collapse. This tubular construction with a sprung floor between an outer tube and inner tube of steel made the collapse go straight down, funnelling it into each floor below. The force of the energy and mass of each floor hitting the one below it would crush the concrete, each subsequent floor adding more mass to the KE=(1/2) mv^2. This energy would have rendered sufficient pressure to melt any steel that was merely hot, on the way down, and would have resulted in workers finding pools of molten steel. If you measure the time of collapse you will find more than enough leeway for impacts to occur and at less than freefall velocity.

Also the temperatures did not need to reach that of MELTING point of the steel. All they had to do was weaken it over time, after the insulation had been stripped from the beams due to a 600 kph impact of a large jet. Just one beam weakens and the floor above tips and begins to collapse into the one below. Just one floor collapses and the entire building falls, as the engineering leeway of adding 20% for safety margin would not have allowed for the additional mass and impact velocity to be supported by the floor below. If you heat steel you weaken it and all it took was one deformed beam and the building collapses. This is due to the modern, hi-tech design of WTC, which allowed for much less leeway if such an event occurred. Once one floor was rendered structurally unsound the entire building, at that moment, ceased to exist as a supportable structure.

Gravity did the rest.

I'm sorry but where do you get that? What's your source? Sounds like pure conjecture to me.

Are you aware that the designers of the WTC said that it could withstand multiple jet impacts? Frank DeMartini said it on TV for example, before he was killed on 9/11. Here is the clip where he explains this:

Your theory has NEVER been replicated using miniature sized models. Some have tried to, but they failed.

The whole "weaken steel" thing is a total moot point. Even if the steel weakened, or even melted, there is still no way for the WTC to fall at the rate of gravity. No scenario or possibility at all. Period. Never has happened before either.

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

Globetrotter,
Here is the scientific flowchart that shows how ALL TEN features of the WTC collapse FIT that of a controlled demolition and how your fire induced theory fit NONE of them! It can't get more conclusive and scientific than that!

You really need to watch the "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" film which explains all of this point by point.

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

It's called intelligence, materials science and the powers of observation. Primitive peoples would say that a cell phone is magic. Truthers have a deep need to explain to themselves that which they cannot understand.

I have seen a controlled demolition live in person, felt the concussion, watched the shock waves from explosives, seen the detonator cord light up, watched as charges are detonated in sequence over a period of 15 seconds, watched as one part after another fell. I have watched the WTC video 100 times, I have read all the proof you mentioned, I have seen all the videos, Zeitgeist, efc. WTC LOOKS LIKE but IS NOT a controlled demolition.

You simply are incapable of the observational acuity necessary to tell that WTC was not a controlled demolition. It is that simple. You just can't tell the difference and I can and I won't waste another moment of my life trying to educate someone who knows less than I do. I have refuted those bullet points in those slides multiple times in other threads on other fora with other people over and over and over and over and I am tired of having to prove something that is so facile, obvious and clear to me and my engineering buddies but seems to escape people like you.

Consider this Winston:
That the reason you, and Truthers, seek this convoluted conspiracy explanation is that unlike most people you are incapable of accepting what happened. To you the horror of some nuts flying planes into buildings and killing thousands is so unacceptable at an emotional level that you seek out a near "supernatural" chain of events to shore up your psyche. You need the reassurance that the .Gov did this because the truth is far to frightening.

For if (what you refer to as) the 'Standard Story about 9-11' were true, then the world would be a very scary and very dangerous place, knowing that at any moment more jihadists could fly a jet at you. Wouldn't it? It would be a horrific way to die being a passenger in such a jet. If your CT were nonsense (which they are) then you would have nothing to hold onto knowing that it was random and the act of nuts.

That is scary, isn't it? A lot scarier than blaming the Jooos or Illumanti or Bilderburgs or some Other Cabal.

I have no intention of discussing this religion of yours further. I have better things to do with my life.

My only request is that you do not allow this forum to devolve into a conspiracy theory nuthouse. Such topics have ruined many other PT and MRM forums and I implore you to shunt such topics far, far, away. When I ran my forum I did not allow any CT at all.

So you're claiming that the WTC collapse looked like a collapse from fire? LOL

Yeah right!

You are the one treating this like a religion.

I have no emotional investment in this. I have no need to believe in conspiracies. The evidence is there.

And you are dead wrong that we Truthers feel more emotional comfort thinking that the government was behind 9/11 than terrorists were. Who would feel safe knowing that their own government was capable of such a thing? You're not making sense.

Why are you blind to the facts and evidence?

You have not explained the near free fall speed, nor have you explained how Building 7 went down in 6 seconds like that even though it wasn't hit by a plane!

I have name MANY engineers who say that the WTC collapse does not fit the official story.

Bush is a pathological liar and everyone knows that, so why do you believe his conspiracy theory? Why do you take it on faith the words of a proven liar? Isn't that foolish?

Moreover, why do you have an air of ridicule about you on this topic? You do not sound rational or objective.

Anyway, this topic would take many more hours to discuss, which we don't have the time for. I suggest you watch the film I recommended above.

But it appears that you didn't even watch the 38 second clip of Frank DeMartini that I posted above, who said that the WTC was designed to withstand multiple jet impacts. He designed the thing. You didn't. So he knows WAY MORE than you.

Finally, where is your explanation for why William Rodriguez and many others said they heard an explosion in the BASEMENT of the WTC that PUSHED them UPWARDS?!

Where???!?!?!? Where?!?!?!?!?!

You have none. You ran away from this fact that debunks your beliefs. So YOU LOSE.

End of story.

PS - If the truth is simple and the official story is the only possible version, then why is there an obvious cover up? Why has the government refused to answer 70 percent of the victim's family's questions? Why are they hiding the 80 video tapes of the Pentagon Crash? Why did they lie about all the black boxes being destroyed? Why so many lies and cover ups if the truth is simple?

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

One more thing. Your psychoanalysis that conspiracy theorists believe in government plots because it is more comforting to them is NOT what the establishment claims about them. The government and establishment defenders claim that conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracies because of an imbalance in cause and effect. For instance, they have trouble accepting that a lone nut assassin like Oswald could kill one of the greatest US Presidents of all time, JFK. A nobody cannot bring down a US President, they feel. The cause and effect doesn't balance each other. Only a greater plot from greater powers could balance out the tragedy. So they attribute it to a big government conspiracy.

That's the standard copout explanation for conspiracy theories by the media and establishment.

It may have a degree of truth. However, there are many conspiracy people who have no emotional investment in any of it. They simply base their conclusions on the facts and evidence.

In Europe for example, most people believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and most who have looked into 9/11 believe it was an inside job, even though they were not traumatized by it nor have any emotional investment in it. It is their OBJECTIVE opinion.

That debunks your psychological explanation right there.

Likewise, I have no emotional investment in 9/11 either. I was not traumatized by it. To me, it's just a mystery/detective novel, a great "whodunnit" case. And my objective unbiased conclusion is that hundreds of facts don't add it, and that there is a cover up of the truth, so we were not told the whole story. That's all I know and all I claim.

You do NOT have answers to the anomalies above. That's obvious. So you resort to ridicule to sweep it all under the rug. Nice try but no cigar.

One more thing. If the WTC fell from a pancake collapse, the 47 inner core columns would be standing and there would be a stack of floors at the bottom like records stacked at the bottom of a spindle.

Don't tell me you buy that lie from internet debunkers that the WTC core was hollow. That is a flat out lie. Serious researchers who obtained the blueprints of the WTC have confirmed that there were 47 STEEL CORE columns. Why weren't they still standing?

Your weakening of steel, or "inward bowing" theory is pure conjecture and has NEVER been proven. Plus it does not add up scientifically. NIST tried to make it work but could not, so they cheated in their computer model. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan came out public with this and exposed NIST, and was fired as a result.

I guess truth isn't the highest value, only conformity and loyalty is, huh?

Your thoughts Globetrotter?

And this time, can you please respond WITHOUT RIDICULE?

PS - The fact that you had to use ridicule in your last post speaks VOLUMES. You see, IF the TRUTH were really on YOUR SIDE, you wouldn't have to do that. You would be able to take the Zen approach and simply state the simple facts and evidence, and let the facts speak for themselves. But you obviously can't do that cause you have no answer to the hundreds of anomalies and gaping holes in your side of the 9/11 debate, and you know it. Thus you know that you cannot truly defend the official story. So you have to resort to ridicule instead of discussing the objective evidence and facts. That is VERY TELLING right there.

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

Winston wrote:So you're claiming that the WTC collapse looked like a collapse from fire? LOL.

I am not playing this game, Winston.

I have read all of the 'evidence' and 'facts' you cite and I can refute each one. You reply is not unique - it is like I am arguing with the same person over and over.

As I posted before the simple fact is that like so many Truthers you have a intense mistrust of authority (good) coupled with a lack of intellectual insight that leaves one incapable of accurate observation and analysis. So what you cannot understand you conjure convoluted explanations to give you peace. This emotional needs messes up your ability to accurately assess a situation and utilize cause and effect in a rational manner.

Winston wrote:So you're claiming that the WTC collapse looked like a collapse from fire? LOL.

I am not playing this game, Winston.

I have read all of the 'evidence' and 'facts' you cite and I can refute each one. You reply is not unique - it is like I am arguing with the same person over and over.

As I posted before the simple fact is that like so many Truthers you have a intense mistrust of authority (good) coupled with a lack of intellectual insight that leaves one incapable of accurate observation and analysis. So what you cannot understand you conjure convoluted explanations to give you peace. This emotional needs messes up your ability to accurately assess a situation and utilize cause and effect in a rational manner.

I won't waste another second of my life on this fiction.

Cheers!

You saying that I have no intellectual ability to judge this situation does NOT prove or debunk anything. If you don't want to listen to me, then listen to these experts on NORAD, who have worked with them and for NORAD! Remember these are not conspiracy nuts. They are AVIATION PROFESSIONALS/EXPERTS! You should listen to them cause they know a hell of a lot more than you do!

Originally posted by rush969

Continuing...

- NORAD failed to intercept four airliners off course on 9/11, which was impossible according to their standard 24/7 procedures.

I donÂ´t think you or I know NORADÂ´s standard 24/7 procedures in detail.This looks more like rewritting something youÂ´ve read over and over someplace and youÂ´re somehow convinced that NORADÂ´s 24/7 procedures werenÂ´t followed that day.

Also, veteran air traffic controllers like Robin Hordon did too. See also the same link or his interview in "Zero An Investigation into 9/11".

Here is what Robin Hordon said: (remember he is an authority on NORAD, not you!)

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlStatement to this website 4/10/07: "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen.

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. ...

He further states:

Article 3/12/07: "When it became clear that there hadn't been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

"I'm sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticutâ€”bang, done deal." ...

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter -- and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe. ...

There, those are the analyses from an authority on the subject, not an armchair quarterback like you!

Of course, this doesn't mean it was an inside job. It only means that the government LET it happen or allowed it to happen as an excuse to get into war. It's the "they knew about it and let it happen" hypothesis, which most Americans agree with at least, even if they don't believe it was an inside job.

Is that too hard for you to buy?

Listen to his key words here. Pay attention:

"Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

Also, here is what NORAD tactical director Capt. Daniel Davis had to say about it:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlAdditionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

Again, don't you think a NORAD officer would know BETTER than a pure conjecturist like you?

You agree that people who work for or with NORAD know more about it than you, right? Agreed?

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World